You don't believe that there are 1300 Senior Project Manager positions in the United States?

Any situation can be over-policed.

If you detained every single person in America and strip-searched them based on a single murder, I think most people would say that's over-policing.

The problem is that many people are defensive based on the data provided, and assume the OP's intent is to show that Black and Native Americans are profiled. I think it's a safe assumption, but speaking in generalities in the other direction isn't going to be of any benefit.

The study that's linked here is very different, in my mind. It shows a different problem (and one that I think is clearer) where there is a disparity with little prescient knowledge beyond race. The fatal shootings probably have a lot of variables (and differences in lead-up and situation that caused the shooting) that makes them less useful to compare all together as they are here.

Well, there's more to it than just that, even.

"Crimes committed" would, I assume, mean convictions. Convictions are not without bias either, both in terms of the procurers (witnesses, judge, jury) but also available representation and means.

This isn't saying the OP doesn't have an agenda, just that with any comparison, it's going to be fraught with bias even without intention.

"The findings also suggest that a more challenging interview increases the probability of accepting the job offer by 2.6 percent."

This strikes me as a dangerous and potentially incorrect statement. Does the challenging interview increase the probability of acceptance or is it associated with companies that are growing/popular/frontrunners and therefore a first choice for applicants? Is it a statistically significant difference? Is it simply correlated?

I say this because these statements are not in a vacuum. For software development, which is the only industry I can speak to, many interviews are already ridiculous in length and number of rounds. Some HR at a decent company is going to look at this and say "Well, guess we should make our interviews more burdensome".

Also, I just noticed... this survey is from November 2020. That seems like it would be important or at least notable. Though I may be in the minority on that.

Sure! You can check some of the details here or just Google "spousal IRA contributions"

I might have missed it (or it may just be lumped in with savings), but if you want to, max out your IRA for you and your spouse. My spouse doesn't work and I recently found out that I can still contribute the max for them in their name.

Post tax, of course, but still will be nice to keep taxable income down in retirement.

Ran it through a Perl script and these are the top ten differences:

​